marvelfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Anton Ivanov
The Red Guardian Is there any hard evidence that says Anton Ivanov from Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is based on the Red Guardian character from the comics? I understand the connection between the characters is something fans of the series have theorized about, which is why I do not have a problem with the page existing. But as long as it is titled "Anton Ivanov," the character from the TV series should be the main character, and the Red Guardian go under "Others" where loosely connected characters tend to go anyway. - LoveWaffle (talk) 21:16, March 1, 2017 (UTC) :Disambiguations over a single character tend to be organized with the original version of the character as the Main Character, and the alternate versions in specific sections below. If the name of this page has been chosen as "Anton Ivanov" instead of simply "Anton", has been to keep the page dedicated to the versions, existing and possibly upcoming, of this character avoid this page from becoming a place to collect each and every character sharing a first name, such as Hannah, Frank or Joe. It mirrors the similar case of Isabelle Hartley, that was created under User:ADour's guidance.--Shabook (talk) 21:23, March 1, 2017 (UTC) ::I was unaware of that disambiguation for Isabelle Hartley. The connections between the Red Guardian and The Superior are a bit shakier, but for now I see your point. - LoveWaffle (talk) 21:55, March 1, 2017 (UTC) :::If we go by Naming Conventions, there shouldn't be disambiguation for real names at all, only for aliases (code-names). Of course rules are meant to be broken but this page is unnecessary because there's only one Anton Ivanov so disambiguation isn't needed. :::I also think that a main character should be the one who the reader is most likely looking for and absolutely not to be decided by the first appearance. If there's no clear main article, there shouldn't be one in the disambiguation either. —Mrkermit (talk) 18:22, March 2, 2017 (UTC) ::::Before the reveal that matched the backstory of the comics character to the events of the, as of this date, last episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., if a casual reader looked for the name Anton Ivanov, or simply started typing Anton in the search bar above, he would not find any connection to the 616 character that inspired him, and would have been overlooked. This page ensures readers can easily find both the TV character and the original character he is based on. As stated above, exactly the same case as with Isabelle Hartley. Isn't the purpose of any wiki to be as helpful as possible for readers?--Shabook (talk) 18:58, March 2, 2017 (UTC) :::::If readers are searching for Anton Ivanov, they have been watching the TV series and hope to find his article. They don't want to get there through disambiguation page. They should find about character's origins and 616 inspiration, Anton the Red Guardian, from that article. If they just search for Anton, we can't assume what they are looking for. That's why I'm not against breaking rules to allow that disambiguation page to exist. :::::I've noticed that you're quick to argue by presenting an existing page as an evidence. If you could link to a discussion about that page, I can take that as an evidence of some kind of local consensus but when you link to a page which you have created without any other editors, it's less than a weak argument. Of course my opinions are same for Isabelle Hartley disambiguation as well. —Mrkermit (talk) 19:52, March 2, 2017 (UTC) ::::::That's probably because I base all my edits on existing precedent, and in the few instances that there is not such precedent, I ask somebody more experienced. In that case, I remember I talked to User:ADour about how to deal with Isabelle (Earth-616) and the disambiguation before creating both articles. He also tweaked the Isabelle (Earth-616) a little upon its creation. If you insist, I can search for the specific thread on his wall...--Shabook (talk) 20:07, March 2, 2017 (UTC) No need to dig that thread as we aren't really settling any content dispute for now. I'm not interested enough to start any such kind over this page and when you say so, of course I believe you. I mean that linking to that discussion would have proved that you have at least one other user agreeing with you. That's still very far from community consensus and consensus is also liable to change. That's why existing pages aren't good arguments in disputes but Policies should be our guidelines. Besides, I think that you are on a wrong track when basing your edits on precedents or senior members's opinions. We should aim for improvement, not conserving status quo. —Mrkermit (talk) 21:50, March 2, 2017 (UTC) :Probably I didn't explain myself correctly. What I meant with the whole precedents is, with an easy example, to follow this kind of reasoning: "I want to create an article for a character, I'm gonna check a few articles to see how they look like. How funny, all these articles have this kind of Earth designation after the name. So that should be the correct thing, I'm gonna add it too in the article I'm gonna create. Maybe that is a discussion for a whole different place and/or time. As a conclusion, at least for the time being, as a general case, I believe that nobody can possibly be blamed for doing an edit based on what is done in another group of existing articles. If those edits were wrong, then the fault has to be attributed to the ones that made the original edit(s) that started to constitute precedent, because edits, many times, are done mirroring the style seeing in other articles (either good or bad precedents). How can anybody possibly know that something is wrong in a lot (and in many cases, almost all) of articles where an edit has been and keeps being done, if there is not a clear place to state that it's not? Now, that I realized it, that's a common thing in many discussions... Also, you know my opinion on how, currently, Policies are far from being up to date, and do not cover each and every instance that they could or should. So, like I said, perhaps different place and/or time.--Shabook (talk) 22:14, March 2, 2017 (UTC) ::Indeed, a different place. I also noticed a little while ago that we're very much going to off topic but still wanted to go on as I felt that this discussion could help others also. And to emphasize that, I agree with everything in your last post. So this is how consensus is created, by discussion. And one little last note, we all started by mimicking but you and me are past that point. —Mrkermit (talk) 23:43, March 2, 2017 (UTC)